10 Mar 2005
The judge's erroneous statement of the date of arrest, his ensuing rhetorical questions based on that mistake and his inadequate clarification when the jury raised related questions unfairly undermined the defence and constituted a departure from accepted norms resulting in substantial and grave injustice; conviction quashed, sentence set aside and retrial ordered.
27 Feb 2004
The Court refused certification and leave to appeal because the proviso in s.83(1) CPO can be validly applied where the appellate court is satisfied that no reasonable jury would have acquitted even if properly directed; in such cases applying the proviso does not violate the right to trial by jury or constitutional provisions.
7 Nov 2003
The court dismissed the application for a certificate, concluding the point advanced did not merit a certificate under section 32(2) Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and therefore no certificate was granted for referral to the Court of Final Appeal.
28 Mar 2002
The repeated summing-up phrasing that the appellant had ordered the shop to be 'blown up' misdirected the jury by implying knowledge of and intent for an explosion causing death or serious injury; that misdirection was materially prejudicial and required quashing of the murder conviction, but the jury's findings established unlawful dangerous act manslaughter which the Court substituted under s83A CPO and imposed a 26‑year concurrent sentence given extreme culpability.
30 Jun 1998
The conviction for the male victim (Count 2) was quashed because the trial judge misdirected the jury by suggesting that the applicant's admission of shining a torch after seeing the first killing could establish participation in a joint enterprise to rob and kill both victims; that admission could only support that the applicant allied himself to the intention to kill the female victim. The conviction for the female victim (Count 3) was upheld because the applicant's admissions and conduct were sufficient to sustain guilt for her murder.
6 Aug 1996
Leave to appeal was refused because the prosecution evidence (surveillance and seizure of over 100 kg of methamphetamine) was overwhelming, the judge properly summarised the case and dealt with the points raised including s.47, the 1st applicant's testimony was properly admissible against the 2nd, allegations of counsel incompetence were unproven and speculative, and the 1st applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of obtaining representation to justify further adjournment.
27 Apr 1995
Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds were without substance; the convictions were supported by ample evidence (confessions and accomplice evidence) and there was no irregularity, misdirection or misreception of evidence sufficient to vitiate the jury's unanimous verdicts.
26 Sept 1989
The appeal was dismissed: the trial judge's directions on alibi and general approach to the evidence were adequate and any imprecise phrasing did not render the conviction unsafe; counsel's decision not to call two alibi witnesses was a permissible tactical exercise of discretion, not a refusal to act on instructions nor flagrantly incompetent advocacy, and therefore did not constitute a material irregularity requiring quashing of the conviction.
18 Mar 1986
Although the trial judge erred by (i) not identifying specific lies when inviting the jury to consider whether lies could corroborate accomplice evidence and (ii) characterising the seized notebook as corroboration of an accomplice, the audiovisual evidence, physical exhibits and other independent material were so strong that any misdirection was harmless under the proviso to section 83(1); accordingly the convictions were upheld and leave to appeal against sentence refused.
19 Dec 1985
There was insufficient evidence to link the appellant to the commission of the offences or to show that any officer of Leeds Textiles committed the offences; section 20 of the Theft Ordinance was inapplicable; the trial judge misdirected the jury by conflating counts and failing to put the defence, rendering the convictions unsafe — appeal allowed, convictions quashed, sentences set aside and appellant discharged; costs awarded under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.